Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.

[tooki]

Indeed, the cost of real estate is insane now. One metric used is the ratio of avg. home cost to median household income. And by that metric, it's high now (around 4:1),
...
But moreover, the sale price-to-median-income ratio in cities has just gone insane. It's now almost 10:1 in many cities. So while the average ratio for the whole country might not be very different, the cities have become unaffordable for anyone but the super-wealthy.

People pretty much everywhere and for decades now have, on average, been spending 1/4 to 1/3 of their income on housing and up to 1/2 if they wanted to live in locations with high demand.

You're confusing two very different metrics.

Spending no more than 1/3 of your net income on housing is one rule of thumb. (Or half in very high cost areas, as you said.)

The ratio of house price and gross income is totally different, because a) it doesn't consider income tax, b) doesn't consider non-mortgage expenses like maintenance, insurance, etc and c) doesn't include the cost of financing. If you take a standard 30y mortgage on a $200K house, you actually end up spending about $400K on it by the end of the mortgage. If that $400K represents 1/3 of your net income, then it means the price of the house can't exceed around 1/6 of your net income.


Plus, of course, that averages don't tell the full story anyway.

It would be nicer if it was lower but I don't see anything wrong with it. Prime location real estate is limited and I see nothing wrong with the highest bidder getting it. So young people can't afford it? So what? We can't all have everything we want and we can't all live in prime locations. That is just life and the laws of physics.

Don't go telling people how life "is", it's just patronizing.

The young person who can't get it should feel happy for the other person who paid more and got it. It's not like there's lots of prime real estate sitting empty for years because the owner is asking too much. The owner gets what he can.

LMAO you are totally delusional. London has entire neighborhoods where the majority of homes are vacant because they've been bought by the rich foreigners as pure investment properties. No, the owners don't just "get what they can", because they aren't selling at all (though when they do, there's another rich foreign investor ready to buy). The result is reduced supply, raising the prices, and making it hard for people who actually need to live there to do so.

Same thing in Vancouver, BC, for example.

There are many factors that can distort the markets, and I don't think we should "feel happy" for people who benefit from this.

So home builders are not building what the market demands? Why is that? Because it seems to me they would be rather build what sells than what does not sell.

Um, no. They build what makes them the most money, which doesn't necessarily align with what people would choose if they were building it themselves.

I don't like to see this modern attitude of "things are wrong and someone ought to do something about it because I deserve a comfortable life".

How on earth is that a "modern" attitude? People have always wanted things to be better. And that's a good thing.

So you can't get to live where you would prefer? Tough luck. Most people don't either. Everybody makes compromises.

And this means we can't voice the things we think should improve? Fuck off.

The world is as it is. If other people pay more for goods then they get them. That is how the world works.

I do not understand people who think they have inherent right to live better than previous generations. That is not how the world works. Sometimes things get better and sometimes things get worse.

The overall trend for humanity is one of constant improvement. It's not a pure straight line, but does this mean we should just shut up and take it? No, fuck off.

Now, I do agree that inequality is a problem. A serious problem which needs to be addressed. And it is not a simple problem to address. It needs a lot of understanding of the causes and how it might be ameliorated without causing bigger problems elsewhere.

And reducing inequality is not going to solve all problems. There are many problems that are structural and/or cultural. Retired people want to continue to receive pensions and benefits without regard to who or how they are paid. For decades old folks have been receiving in retirement much more than they put into the system but this is unsustainable in the long run.

Oh, so this is something we can complain about? I thought you just wanted us to bend over and take it...

And I'd love to see where I said that reducing inequality will solve all problems...

Inequality should be reduced but this requires a responsible government with long term thinking and very careful planning which pretty much means it is not going to happen. It will be used in a partisan manner by all concerned but nothing effective will be done.

OK. So we can't discuss the situation, and explore its causes? Wouldn't want to be accused of whining...

[soldar]

LMAO you are totally delusional.
...
Fuck off.
...
No, fuck off.

Yeah, I don't need that attitude.
Thanks and bye.

[james_s]

Pretty much the only thing you listed that is definitely cheaper in USA is land.

Land is a very big one though, it is by far my biggest expense and the most valuable asset I own.

Energy too I think is still quite a lot cheaper here, for example I pay about $0.085 per kWh for electricity, roughly 1/3 what my friend in the UK pays.

[james_s]

“Money doesn’t necessarily have any connection with happiness. Maybe with unhappiness.”
Oil magnate J. Paul Getty.

Money has a very clear connection to happiness. Lots of money won't generally make you happier than an adequate amount, but an inadequate amount can cause great misery. This seemingly obvious point seems to get lost in many of these "money can't buy happiness" discussions.

The thing that should be obvious here is that if you have so little money that you struggle to cover basic needs then money will most definitely buy happiness. Once you have enough money that you can afford all the stuff you really need then beyond that point more money does not really buy more happiness.

[apis]

Land is a very big one though, it is by far my biggest expense and the most valuable asset I own.

Energy too I think is still quite a lot cheaper here, for example I pay about $0.085 per kWh for electricity, roughly 1/3 what my friend in the UK pays.

The U.S. isn't as densely populated, there's also more wilderness left in the U.S. compared to Europe.
Electricity though, I can get as low as $0.053 per kWh. But Swedish electricity prices are pretty low thanks to having a lot of nuclear and hydro power.

[tooki]

LMAO you are totally delusional.
...
Fuck off.
...
No, fuck off.

Yeah, I don't need that attitude.
Thanks and bye.

Idiotic claims get corresponding replies. 

[coppice]

Just ask Neil deGrasse Tyson - "what's up with chicks and science?" - short clip:

Every single point Neil Tyson made in that video has a corollary in my own experiences in high school. I was really good at maths, physics and chemistry, and people had pre-conceived ideas of what a white kid from London with those talents should do. It was ABSOLUTELY not to study engineering, which is what I wanted to do. People were quite hostile about my choice, but if you live your life by what others expect its going to turn out pretty miserable. I studied engineering anyway.

[coppice]

I don't think they discount the fact that women may have different interests than men.  What they want to make men and women aware, is the fact that there really are cultural hindrances for women who do have an interest in becoming an electrical engineer, and how women are discouraged from taking such a route due to a lot of social bias. 

That is an assertion presented as a given with no valid evidence to support it. And when asked for support they present the lower numbers of women in STEM which makes no sense.

--Women are hindered from entering STEM. The proof is in the lower numbers.
--What if the lower numbers stem from women just preferring other things as proven by studies?
--That is an unacceptable hypothesis because it means we would have to close shop and lose grants and go and find real jobs. Anyone who doubts our unsupported assertion is a sexist pig and the enemy of all women.

That's more or less how it goes.

If you actually read the PDF, it cites a scientific study for every claim they make.

Can you point out exactly which PDF you are referring to? You pointed to multiple PDFs, and they seem to only make unsupported claims.

[windsmurf]

Can you point out exactly which PDF you are referring to? You pointed to multiple PDFs, and they seem to only make unsupported claims.

Yes it was an attachment on reply #909.  Here's a link to the uploaded PDF.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/gender-politics-has-now-infected-engineering-as-well/?action=dlattach;attach=768852

[james_s]

Actually I don't think 50:50 is that relevant for them. Surprisingly many of those nutjobs actually target 0:100, nothing else. For example, when the new government ministers were chosen here, and the first time in history ratio of men:women exceeded 50:50, we heard a lot of commentary such as "this is a good start towards equality, but we are still far away from true equality", very clearly indicating only 0:100 is true equality.

This is a phenomenon that is far wider spread than gender in engineering or any other field. Any time you have any kind of activist group it takes on a life of its own. If it accomplishes the original goal it never just says "well, good job all, we did it, we can go home now", instead the goalposts are immediately moved and some new justification is invented for the organization's continued existence. I have no doubt that if they did somehow manage to achieve a 50:50 ratio someone would decide that now we need to make up for past grievances and push the ratio further.

[Kjelt]

Any time you have any kind of activist group it takes on a life of its own. If it accomplishes the original goal it never just says "well, good job all, we did it, we can go home now", instead the goalposts are immediately moved and some new justification is invented for the organization's continued existence.

Depends, in the history many activists groups have stopped when they reached their desired goal.
If the goal is SMART defined so you know when you have reached your target this is possible. It is a problem when an activist group has no SMART target but some broad goal as "make the world a better place" or "save the environment" those goals will never be reached.

[coppice]

Any time you have any kind of activist group it takes on a life of its own. If it accomplishes the original goal it never just says "well, good job all, we did it, we can go home now", instead the goalposts are immediately moved and some new justification is invented for the organization's continued existence.

Depends, in the history many activists groups have stopped when they reached their desired goal.
If the goal is SMART defined so you know when you have reached your target this is possible. It is a problem when an activist group has no SMART target but some broad goal as "make the world a better place" or "save the environment" those goals will never be reached.

If a group has a broad goal, like "make the world a better place", it has no reason or need to ever stop. General improvement is always possible and typically a good thing. Its the groups with narrowly defined goals who are dangerous. Their goals can be fully met, but by that time there are lots of people with their whole lives and incomes tied up in achieving those goals. Many of these people know nothing else by this point. They have no other interests or skills, and they will stick with the cause, taking it in strange and damaging directions. If we are lucky, these people fail to sustain momentum and fade away. Often, that doesn't happen, and these people are quite destructive.

[Circlotron]

If a male engineer self-identified as female, would these SJW/equality people consider them as eligible for making up the number of female employees in a company? And if they were rejected, what would be the basis for that rejection?

[windsmurf]

If a male engineer self-identified as female, would these SJW/equality people consider them as eligible for making up the number of female employees in a company? And if they were rejected, what would be the basis for that rejection?

They aren't advocating for a simple increase in number of female engineers; they're not fighting for affirmative action for females.   Just hiring females to meet an ad-hoc quota without being sensitive to the cultural biases does no good for the company nor the female engineers.   If they are counting numbers then its just to collect as one of the many pieces of evidences they use to measure the effectiveness of their advocacy. 

As for self-identification, I think that's another discussion around LGBTQ and they have their own advocates...  but for the sake of argument I'd imagine they would be inclusive of anyone identifying themselves as female in gender. 

Gender is the state of being male or female in relation to the social and cultural roles that are considered appropriate for men and women.  They are advocating gender diversity, not biological sex diversity.

[james_s]

Who is "they"? Because quite a few people are advocating for exactly those things you say "they" are not advocating.

[EEVblog]

LMAO you are totally delusional.
...
Fuck off.
...
No, fuck off.

Yeah, I don't need that attitude.
Thanks and bye.

Tooki and Soldar
Both of you seem to be continually antagonistic on this forum in multiple threads. These are personal attacks and are against forum policy, please cut it out, we can only tolerate this so far.

[windsmurf]

Who is "they"? Because quite a few people are advocating for exactly those things you say "they" are not advocating.

AAUW, IEEE WIE, SWE.org are some that I know about.
The PDF I attached and linked (reply #933) is from AAUW research.

To whom are you referring that are advocating for an affirmative action-type quota/favoritism hiring practice?

[Kjelt]

Not that this is the sole and only truth but there is some value in this and coming from a female CEO it just delivers the message a bit stronger.
The engineering work is just more about stuff then social interaction and life work balance.

https://youtu.be/-Jskcb0RoUE

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

--Women are hindered from entering STEM. The proof is in the lower numbers.
--What if the lower numbers stem from women just preferring other things as proven by studies?
--That is an unacceptable hypothesis because it means we would have to close shop and lose grants and go and find real jobs. Anyone who doubts our unsupported assertion is a sexist pig and the enemy of all women.

That's more or less how it goes.

For once I'm with soldar on this one. That's exactly how it goes. The climate change lobby is just like that too.

[magic]

Who is "they"? Because quite a few people are advocating for exactly those things you say "they" are not advocating.

AAUW, IEEE WIE, SWE.org are some that I know about.
The PDF I attached and linked (reply #933) is from AAUW research.

To whom are you referring that are advocating for an affirmative action-type quota/favoritism hiring practice?

Even the "culture" types generally argument along the lines "culture needs to change because women don't like it" and "culture will only really change if women will be more represented because reasons". In the end, it's all women, women, women, need more women, we need more excuses for more women.

And frankly, what some washed-out, politically correct ideologues proclaim is irrelevant when real world practice is what it is, namely: companies implement "incentives" for management to maintain employee quotas more representative of general population than actual job market and then miraculously manage to meet those quotas. Go figure.
I have a relative who works at a European office of one American electronics company and he says they outright get bonuses from America for hiring women and will therefore hire "any bimbo with a STEM diploma of any sort". Now, nobody really complains about it because in the end of the day they still have work to do and if you are competent you will get a job even without boobs. But it's a joke nevertheless.

Oh, and the latest time this thread has been revived was with a story of some university banning hiring men for a year, if you haven't noticed that post.

The climate change lobby is just like that too.

Meh, with those there is a decent chance they are onto something IMO, even if half of them are more concerned with milking the opportunity for money than actually improving anything.

Oh, and as for those transwomen - of course it's not that clear cut as you say. You can talk all day long that gender is a social construct and whether you have a dick or not is irrelevant, but actually a few month ago there was a story of some American tech CEO "coming out" as a woman and while the politically correct, inclusive types applauded her courage as usual, a number of feminists cried that it's another trick of men still ruling the world and stealing whatever little privilege women managed to win for themselves.
Sorry, no links, generally when I see that kind of content I have a chuckle and forget about it

[EEVblog]

Who is "they"? Because quite a few people are advocating for exactly those things you say "they" are not advocating.

AAUW, IEEE WIE, SWE.org are some that I know about.
The PDF I attached and linked (reply #933) is from AAUW research.

To whom are you referring that are advocating for an affirmative action-type quota/favoritism hiring practice?

Engineers Australia had a conference talk on the subject:
https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/2018-09/Women-in-Engineering-flyer6.pdf
https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/Event/women-engineering-and-college-leadership-and-management-dinner-quotas-workplace

The fact that they felt the need to have a talk and information evening on it shows that it's happening and being done in engineering.
BHP, Australia's biggest mining company set up a 50/50 quota in 2016:
https://www.ft.com/content/063eb6bc-d10f-11e8-a9f2-7574db66bcd5

[EEVblog]

And frankly, what some washed-out, politically correct ideologues proclaim is irrelevant when real world practice is what it is, namely: companies implement "incentives" for management to maintain employee quotas more representative of general population than actual job market and then miraculously manage to meet those quotas. Go figure.

Gender quota's in engineering are completely (and often illegally) sexist at best. But when you factor in the number of female engineers in the market hiring "pool" compared to males, it's even worse.
So let's say females are 10% of the pool of engineers looking for work, you are excluding 90% of the market from the job. This is insane. Even from the side of finding a good quality candidate, your odds are greatly reduced (assuming, fairly, that female and male engineers suck and/or are not suitable for a job in equal ratios), why any company would think this is a good idea is beyond me.

Countless times I've looked through often 100+ resumes for a job. Usually only a few percent a female, and I'd hate to have to only pick from those one or two.

[magic]

You are five years behind the times, Dave

Today you don't simply hire two women and two men out of 2+98 applications. That would indeed look suspiciously on any inspection of your hiring practices.

You need to solve the pipeline problem and seek women where they are being left behind. So perhaps got to your local university, organize a conference about the wonders of diversity and representation of women and, by the way, hand all attenders your job ads. Make sure to adjust your culture, remove mentions of stereotypically masculine concepts like competence and emphasize team work instead.

That's how the big boys do it. Otherwise you are indeed asking for a lawsuit.

[coppice]

Can you point out exactly which PDF you are referring to? You pointed to multiple PDFs, and they seem to only make unsupported claims.

Yes it was an attachment on reply #909.  Here's a link to the uploaded PDF.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/gender-politics-has-now-infected-engineering-as-well/?action=dlattach;attach=768852

That is one of the more offensive pieces of drivel I have seen on the topic of the need for more women in engineering. It makes various ludicrous claims about the current state of engineering, like engineers are weak on critical thinking, yet offers no solutions. Just a vague magical claim that women would improve things. An engineer who is weak on critical thinking is a bad engineer. They always have been and always will be. Probably the biggest factor which separates the good from the bad engineers is their quality of critical thinking. Women are no better at it, and attempts to train people in critical thinking have had very poor results. It seems to be an innate quality, that can only be refined by training.

[windsmurf]

Who is "they"? Because quite a few people are advocating for exactly those things you say "they" are not advocating.

AAUW, IEEE WIE, SWE.org are some that I know about.
The PDF I attached and linked (reply #933) is from AAUW research.

To whom are you referring that are advocating for an affirmative action-type quota/favoritism hiring practice?

Engineers Australia had a conference talk on the subject:
https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/2018-09/Women-in-Engineering-flyer6.pdf
https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/Event/women-engineering-and-college-leadership-and-management-dinner-quotas-workplace

That's a discussion about quotas, as quotas are controversial.  They'll likely conclude that quotas make no sense.
From the flyer: "One initiative which often receives mixed feedback is the inclusion of quotas in both public and private sectors."
"...join our distinguished panel ... in answering the challenging questions: Are quotas worth it? Are they fair or are they undermining progress? Are they sustainable? What more should be done?"

The fact that they felt the need to have a talk and information evening on it shows that it's happening and being done in engineering.
BHP, Australia's biggest mining company set up a 50/50 quota in 2016:
https://www.ft.com/content/063eb6bc-d10f-11e8-a9f2-7574db66bcd5

That's an "aspirational goal" according to BHP CEO and to their website:
"To better reflect the communities in which we work, we have set an aspirational goal to achieve gender balance across BHP by 2025. It’s an aspiration designed to harness the enormous potential that a more inclusive and diverse workplace will deliver at BHP, so we can leave a positive legacy for the generations to come."
https://www.bhp.com/our-approach/work-with-us/inclusion-and-diversity

Aspirational goals are not quotas and sometimes not even realistic.

Announcement of such aspiration seem targeted more at creating a dramatic headline, especially in an industry that traditionally are completely male dominated.  Its designed to attract women to see what BHP might have to offer, when traditionally women would never consider even looking at job opening in the mining industry.

And from:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/bhp-billiton-sets-a-5050-gender-target-for-2025-20161020-gs6eib.html

"Some employees think inclusion and diversity is not an area where we can make significant progress; some think women don't want to work in the mining industry, and some male employees have concerns they may be discriminated against," the note circulated to staff this week said.

"However, we will not disadvantage anyone. No one's job is under threat because they are male. But we will work to remove the unconscious bias that, in my view, women have been disadvantaged for a very long time in a male-dominated environment. Once we address that, we base decisions on merit, which is how it should be."